FIGHTING INEQUALITY IN THE TIME OF COVID-19 - The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2020 - Oxfam IBIS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FIGHTING INEQUALITY IN THE TIME OF COVID-19 The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2020 Embargoed until 00:01hrs GMT 8 October 2020
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AND OXFAM REPORT – OCTOBER 2020
COVID-19 hit a world woefully unprepared to fight it, because countries
had failed to choose policies to fight inequality. Only one in six countries
assessed for the CRI Index 2020 were spending enough on health, only a
third of the global workforce had adequate social protection, and in more
than 100 countries at least one in three workers had no labour protection
such as sick pay. As a result, many have faced death and destitution, and
inequality is increasing dramatically. Governments such as South Korea
have shown the way forward in combining recovery from COVID-19 with
fighting inequality.
This third edition of the CRI Index report recommends that all
governments adopt strong anti-inequality policies on public services, tax
and labour rights, to radically reduce the gap between rich and poor. The
international community must support them with Special Drawing Rights,
debt relief and global solidarity taxes.
See also the CRI Index website and methodology note at
www.inequalityindex.org
2CONTENTS
Summary ...............................................................................................................................4
CRI 2020: Failure to tackle inequality leaves countries woefully unprepared for the
Coronavirus pandemic ........................................................................................................ 4
The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2020 .......................................................... 4
Overall results .....................................................................................................................5
Fighting inequality in the time of COVID-19 ......................................................................... 7
CRI index 2020: results from the three pillars ...................................................................... 8
Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................. 14
1 The Impact of COVID-19 on commitment to fight inequality ........................................ 15
The inequality virus ........................................................................................................... 15
2 The 2020 index results: fighting inequality through public services ........................... 21
What is the public services pillar measuring? .................................................................... 21
3 Fighting inequality through tax policy ........................................................................... 29
How the CRI index assesses tax policy ............................................................................. 29
The CRI index 2020 tax policy results ............................................................................... 29
4 Fighting inequality through labour rights and wages ................................................... 38
CRI Index 2020 labour rights and wages results ............................................................... 38
Annex: CRI Index rankIngs ............................................................................................... 46
Regional Rankings ............................................................................................................50
Notes ................................................................................................................................55
3SUMMARY CRI 2020: FAILURE TO TACKLE INEQUALITY LEAVES COUNTRIES WOEFULLY UNPREPARED FOR THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC The 2020 Commitment to Reducing Inequality (CRI) Index shows clearly how the majority of the world’s countries were woefully unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic. With very low levels of spending on public healthcare and weak social protection systems and rights for workers, they were left brutally and unnecessarily vulnerable. The failure of governments to tackle inequality is now forcing ordinary people to bear the brunt of the crisis and pay a much higher price than they should. Just 26 of the 158 countries surveyed for this year’s CRI Index by Oxfam and Development Finance International (DFI) were spending the recommended 15% of their budgets on health1 going into the pandemic. India, for example, spent just 4%. In 103 countries, at least one in three of the workforce had no labour protection such as sick pay. Only 53 countries had social protection systems against unemployment and sickness, and they covered only 22% of the global workforce.2 Conversely, those governments already committed to reducing inequality were the ones best placed to face the economic and health challenges posed by coronavirus. They were best placed to ensure that ordinary people were protected as much as possible, and that the impact of the virus was not dictated by whether you were rich or whether you were poor. THE COMMITMENT TO REDUCING INEQUALITY INDEX 2020 This is the third edition of the CRI Index, which ranks 158 governments across the world on their commitment to reducing inequality. It measures government policies and actions in three areas that are proven to be directly related to reducing inequality: 3 1. Public services (health, education and social protection) 2. Taxation 3. Workers’ rights. 4 While these three thematic pillars remain unchanged, the 2020 CRI Index has seen significant changes in methodology from 2018 (see Figure 1). 5 Each pillar now contains three levels of indicator: 1. Policy commitment indicators: these measure the commitment of governments through their policies (which may not always be implemented in practice); 2. Coverage or implementation indicators: these look at who is covered (or not) as a result of policy actions, or how well a government puts policies on paper into practice; 3. Impact indicators: these measure the impact of policy actions on levels of inequality. These changes to the index’s methodology mean that a straight comparison between the scores of a country in the 2020 index and those for 2018 may not give an accurate picture of that country’s performance. For this reason, our analysis of change focuses on concrete policy changes since the 2018 index. 4
Figure 1: The CRI Index 2020 – pillars and indicators
OVERALL RESULTS
The full CRI Index 2020 global and regional rankings can be found in Annex 1 of the full report.
Those at the top
Most of the countries near the top of the index are OECD countries. With higher gross domestic
products (GDP), they have much more scope to raise progressive tax revenues because they have
more citizens and corporations with higher incomes; likewise, they have greater scope to spend those
revenues on public services and social protection.
Norway tops the 2020 CRI Index, notably scoring top on labour rights. It has the sixth lowest income
inequality in the world but since 2000, has cut its top personal income tax and corporate tax rates
sharply, so that taxes now play a lower role in reducing inequality. Overall inequality and poverty have
risen during the last decade, 6 and 15 OECD countries perform better than Norway on wealth
inequality. But even countries at the top of the listings could improve a lot – especially as many of them
have been backtracking for decades on historical commitments to policies which reduce inequality.
For example, for the past two decades, successive governments in Denmark have promoted taxation
policies that have increased inequality, challenging the historically low levels of inequality within the
population. 7 Since 2010, income growth has stagnated for the 40% with the lowest incomes, 8 while the
richest 10% now own nearly half of the country’s total wealth. 9 Furthermore, the decrease in spending on
education as a redistributive measure to address widening inequality is alarming.10 The new Danish
government elected in 2019 is, however, expected to reverse some of these negative trends, which is
welcome news. Belgium, at number four in the CRI rankings, ranks only 37th on tax, partly due to recent
cuts in corporate income taxes. While Germany ranks third in the overall index, its education spending is
as low as that of South Sudan at 9.35% of government spending; one of the countries at the bottom of
the public spending pillar. In other words, the top-performing countries could do much more.
5Other low- and lower-middle-income countries may not score as highly on the overall index but are
clearly taking steps to reduce inequality, despite their relatively low incomes. Sierra Leone has built on
its commitment to make secondary education free by increasing education spending this year. 11 The
government has clamped down on tax evasion by mining companies and has introduced a property tax
in the capital, Freetown.12 It has also increased its minimum wage, although this applies only to the
small proportion of workers who are formally employed.13
Since the 2018 CRI Index, Vietnam has increased its health spending, which is welcome, although it
must do even more to reduce health inequalities and the significant amount ordinary people need to
pay for the cost of healthcare. Vietnam’s tax collection is strong, especially compared with other
countries in the region, but it could still do more to eliminate tax incentives for corporations. Its score
on labour rights remains low, but if it implements the recent welcome agreement to allow workers to
form their own independent labour unions, this score will improve in future CRI Indexes.14 Vietnam’s
response to the coronavirus pandemic has been among the best in the world.15 The government is
also considering making reducing inequality a core part of its upcoming ten-year plan, which would be
a very important and positive step. 16
Table 1: CRI Index ranking of 158 countries – the top 10
Country Public services ranking Tax ranking Labour ranking CRI ranking
Norway 14 21 1 1
Denmark 8 28 2 2
Germany 5 17 11 3
Belgium 7 37 8 4
Finland 2 61 4 5
Canada 26 8 20 6
France 3 47 16 7
New Zealand 21 11 34 8
Austria 10 50 18 9
Sweden 11 78 7 10
Table 2: Top three low-income (LIC) and lower-middle-income (LMIC) countries
Country Income Public services rank Tax rank Labour ranking CRI ranking
Ukraine LMIC 24 58 39 28
Kyrgyz Republic LMIC 46 14 61 37
Togo LIC 133 2 112 82
Those at the bottom
At the bottom of the 2020 CRI Index is South Sudan, which is new to the index and comes close to last
on all three pillars. This, at least in part, reflects the fact that just two years after independence in 2011,
the country descended into a devastating civil war, which continues to have violent reverberations. 17
But this low ranking also reflects a failure of policy setting by the government for its citizens: for
instance, South Sudan spends six times more on the military and on debt servicing than it does on vital
public services, and it collects only around 15% of the tax that it should. This leads to failure to deliver
on even the most basic of services: less than one-third of the country’s people can access essential
health services, and it is the only country in the index which does not have any pension scheme. South
Sudan has three times as many generals as doctors.18
India is ranked at number 129 in the index. Its health budget is the fourth lowest in the world. Just half
of its population have access to even the most essential health services, and more than 70% of health
6spending is being met by people themselves, one of the highest levels in the world. Most workers earn
less than half of the minimum wage; 71% do not have any written job contract and 54% do not get paid
leave. 19 Only about 10% of the workforce in India is formal, with safe working conditions and social
security. 20 In 2016, the government abolished a wealth tax introduced way back in 1957.21 So far
India’s response to COVID-19 has been woeful, with huge numbers of deaths and millions of people
forced into destitution.
Nigeria is second to last in the index, just ahead of South Sudan. Nigeria continues to collect
shockingly low levels of tax, and it therefore also ranks very low on public services; it is hardly
surprising, then, that one in five out-of-school children in the world live in Nigeria. 22 During the
coronavirus crisis, hit by a collapse in oil revenues, the government has halved its health and
education budgets. 23
Bahrain at third from the bottom of the index and Vanuatu at sixth from the bottom both also do very
badly on tax, with neither having corporate or personal income tax. Bahrain and Oman also score
poorly on labour rights, as four-fifths of their workforce are migrant workers governed by the Kafala
system, which is often described as modern-day slavery. 24 Singapore remains one of the lowest-
ranked high-income countries, largely because of its role as a tax haven.
Table 3: CRI ranking of 158 countries – the bottom 10
Country Public services ranking Tax ranking Labour ranking CRI ranking
South Sudan 158 155 154 158
Nigeria 156 127 158 157
Bahrain 102 158 131 156
Chad 157 113 145 155
Liberia 129 150 132 154
Vanuatu 115 156 115 153
Oman 108 148 138 152
Central African Republic 155 64 157 151
Guinea-Bissau 151 132 126 150
Haiti 145 105 149 149
Table 4: Bottom three high-income countries
Country Public services ranking Tax ranking Labour ranking CRI ranking
Bahrain 102 158 131 156
Panama 78 144 81 108
Singapore 87 145 67 107
FIGHTING INEQUALITY IN THE TIME OF COVID-19
The coronavirus pandemic has swept across a world that was already profoundly unequal. In country
after country it has magnified and increased these inequalities. The poorest people are least able to
isolate, to protect themselves. They are more likely to have pre-existing poor health, making them
more likely to die. Economically, it is ordinary people who are losing their jobs in their tens of millions,
facing huge levels of hunger and hardship. Women are among the hardest hit economically, as they
are more likely to be in precarious work and are also 70% of the world’s health workers. 25
Economic and racial inequality are strongly linked across the world, so the crisis has also exacerbated
racial inequality. Black people generally do more precarious jobs, have less access to healthcare and
7social protection and suffer from other health problems. Across the world, COVID-19 has killed people who were already suffering from racial discrimination. The failure to tackle inequality has left the majority of countries far more vulnerable to both the health and economic impacts of the disease; it has meant that most were unprepared. The response to the coronavirus crisis is a true test of whether a government is committed to reducing inequality. Some countries, like South Korea, which was already a high scorer in the CRI Index, have tackled the crisis head on, notably introducing universal emergency relief payments for 22 million households. 26 Georgia has removed fees for any health expenses related to COVID-19.27 At the other end of the spectrum, Kenya, 28 which had a relatively good CRI Index score on tax, has responded by cutting corporate tax and the top rate of personal income tax. Conversely, some countries like Myanmar, which to date have had a low CRI score, have found new impetus in response to the coronavirus crisis. Myanmar increased its social protection scheme to cover 21 million people, an increase of 8,684%, with a mix of one-off and ongoing supports. Across the world, there have been significant expansions in health and social protection spending. However, there has been little progress on cutting user fees or out-of-pocket expenses, which prevent those living in poverty from accessing healthcare; and social protection spending and coverage in most low- and lower-middle-income countries remains extremely low. Some countries have reduced regressive VAT rates, and a few have introduced progressive ‘solidarity’ taxes to ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share. Many countries have expanded worker rights and protections, particularly through short-time working, sick leave and unemployment benefit. But there have also been sharp rises in unemployment and underemployment, and increased attacks on workers' rights. What has been the role of the international financial institutions, charged by the G20 with leading the global financial response to the pandemic? The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has disbursed US$88bn in support to 80 countries and has saved 28 countries $251m in debt servicing payments. Its analysis is showing that the coronavirus pandemic will increase inequality and is suggesting anti- inequality policy measures such as solidarity taxes. However, in its advice to countries it is already warning of the need for austerity post-coronavirus to reduce debt burdens, which will increase inequality unless a different path is taken. The World Bank has pledged US$160bn in emergency funding, mobilized US$6bn for its COVID-19 Fast Track Facility, and is funding health projects in 74 countries as of June 2020. Yet Oxfam’s analysis shows that only eight of these projects attempt to reduce the cost to households of health expenditures, which each year bankrupt millions of people and exclude them from treatment. CRI INDEX 2020: RESULTS FROM THE THREE PILLARS Public services pillar This pillar looks at actions taken by governments in the areas of education, health and social protection, which are widely understood to have enormous power to reduce inequality. In previous versions of the CRI Index, we have looked at spending as a percentage of the government budget, and at the impact this spending is having on inequality. For the CRI Index 2020 we have added a new set of indicators to measure the coverage and equity of services. 29 Overall scores The top 10 countries in the index rankings all use their public services to fight inequality. The best- performing country in the public services pillar, Poland, puts as much money into the pockets of the poorest people through public services as they earn in the market – so it comes top on impact. Other 8
countries achieve a lot with less wealth. Ukraine comes top of the lower-middle-income group, at
number 24. It invests in public services in a way that has been shown to double the disposable income
of the poorest people, but it needs to do more on health.
The bottom 10 countries show how low levels of spending lead to weak coverage and minimal impact
on inequality.
Spending levels and trends
Many low- and lower-middle-income countries allocate a high proportion of their budgets to education:
they spend nearly 16% of their budgets on education compared with 14% for middle- and high-income
countries, reflecting their young populations. In the 2020 CRI Index, allocations across all three sectors
are stagnant for higher-income countries, but most low- and lower-middle-income countries have
increased spending, even with high debt levels constraining budgets. Ethiopia stands out for spending
the second highest proportion on education and for having significant budgets for health and social
protection, with a significant impact on poverty reduction.
At the bottom of the public services pillar ranking, South Asian countries in particular are doing far too
little to fight inequality. India, Nepal and Sri Lanka are all in the bottom 10, and Bangladesh is 16th
from the bottom of the list.
Coverage levels
On education coverage, there is huge variation between countries in terms of secondary school
completion by the poorest children. Nigeria has the biggest gap between rich and poor: 90% of the
richest pupils complete secondary school, compared with only 15% from the poorest households.
Health coverage includes two components: the ratio of the population who have access to ‘essential’
health services and the number of people spending more than 10% of their income on health costs.
Most high-income countries have reached universal health coverage (UHC), but so have some upper-
middle-income countries, such as Costa Rica and Thailand. They also do it a lot more efficiently:
Thailand achieves universal healthcare spending of $277 per capita, whereas the United States, where
millions of people are still not insured, is spending $11,000 per capita. 30
The final coverage indicator uses pensions as a proxy for overall social protection coverage – due to a
lack of data for other programmes. In total, 40 countries have achieved 100% coverage on this
indicator. All but 10 are high-income countries. A few lower-income countries have shown that near-
universal coverage can be achieved with less: for example, Bolivia has scaled up using higher taxes
on oil and gas. But in more than 50 countries fewer than half of elderly people are covered, and in 34
countries fewer than 10%.
Impact of spending on inequality
Evidence shows that public spending across the three sectors always reduces inequality. However,
impact varies hugely across countries because the extent of redistribution depends on both size and
progressivity: those which spend too little, or do not spend progressively, have less impact. For
instance, in Latin America, Uruguay achieves more redistribution from spending less (but by spending
progressively) than many other Latin America countries, which improves the country’s position on this
sub-pillar; but Guatemala has both very low spending and low levels of progressivity, leading to
virtually no impact on inequality, so it comes at the bottom of the sub-pillar for Latin American
countries.
9Taxation pillar Progressive taxation is widely agreed to be a critical action that governments can take to reduce the gap between rich and poor. The tax pillar in the CRI Index measures a range of different ways in which taxes are or are not contributing to reducing inequality, looking at tax policies, tax implementation and the impact of tax on inequality. It also looks at so-called harmful tax practices i.e. the extent to which a country is behaving in ways characteristic of a tax haven. Overall tax pillar results South Africa comes top of the 2020 CRI Index tax pillar, reflecting a tax system that is relatively progressive on paper and a good record on tax collection, which combine to give it the tax system with the most impact on reducing inequality. However, there is much more that the country could do to make its system even more progressive, such as collect more tax and introduce a wealth tax. The best-performing low-income country is Togo, which has the world’s second most progressive tax system on paper but is let down by poor tax collection. At the bottom end of the tax pillar is Bahrain, which lacks income taxes, has introduced a regressive value added tax (VAT) and relies on oil royalties and customs duties to fund its budget. Among the other countries at the bottom of the tax pillar are Oman and Vanuatu, countries which lack income taxes, and three with very low or flat taxes: Moldova, North Macedonia and Serbia. Progressivity of tax policy Increasingly the counties that have the best tax policies are lower-income countries, as richer nations have systematically cut back on taxation of the richest individuals and corporates over the last few decades (see Box 4 in Section 3). Personal income tax The countries with the most progressive income taxes on paper are all low- or lower-middle-income countries, led by Togo, Central African Republic and Pakistan. At the other end of the scale, 14 countries continue to have regressive ‘flat tax’ systems, charging the same percentage to all taxpayers, regardless of how rich they are. These are mostly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Five countries still had no personal income tax (PIT) in 2019, but the Maldives introduced one in 2020. Overall in 2018–19, the average top PIT rate rose slightly, with Latvia, Lithuania and North Macedonia making deliberate and dramatic decisions to switch away from flat tax systems to progressive ones, and Chile, Costa Rica and Malaysia are planning increases in 2020. Corporate income tax The countries with the highest corporate income tax (CIT) rates are nearly all low-income or lower- middle-income countries such as Guyana, Bangladesh, Chad, Guinea, Jordan and Zambia. On the other hand, the Bahamas, Bahrain and Vanuatu have no CIT. In recent trends, the United States stands out for cutting its corporate tax rate by a massive 13%. Indonesia, which was a star performer in fighting inequality in the 2018 CRI Index, is slashing CIT rates by 8 percentage points; and Belgium by 9 percentage points. 31 However, almost as many countries have been increasing rates, with notable tax increasers being Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Latvia, South Korea and Ecuador. So overall, the average CIT rate has fallen by only 0.2% to 23.9%. 10
Value added tax
VAT is usually a regressive tax, so higher rates exacerbate inequality. However, around 40 countries
take measures to make it neutral or progressive, for example by exempting basic food items. On the
other hand, Denmark, Brazil, Hungary and Lithuania all have rates above 20%.
Relatively few countries have changed their VAT rates since 2018, with only China making a
significant cut of 4%, reflecting a wish to reduce its reliance on indirect taxes; and 10 countries have
increased their rates, led by the Bahamas, in order to fill budget financing gaps. The average global
VAT rate (including eight new countries with VAT) has risen by 0.2% to 15.7%.
Harmful tax practices
The CRI Index includes as a negative indicator the degree to which a country adopts and implements
harmful tax practices (HTPs), attracting corporate profits from other countries and eroding their tax
bases and their ability to fight inequality.
Singapore comes bottom on this indicator. It has one of the highest foreign direct investment (FDI) to
gross domestic product (GDP) ratios in the world, but a high proportion of this is ‘phantom’ investment,
due to the country’s low tax rates and a broad range of tax incentives designed to attract investment or
to base intellectual property, research or treasury activities there. Of the other countries at the bottom,
six are EU members. At the top are 26 countries with no HTPs, of which 23 are lower-income and only
Denmark and France are OECD members.
Tax collection
In the 2020 CRI Index we have changed the methodology slightly, so this indicator now looks only at
‘productivity’ – the percentage of tax which each country is collecting compared with what it should
collect, based on the tax rates it has set. On this basis, the best performers are countries like the
Seychelles, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Barbados, Denmark and Algeria, all of which collect more
than two-thirds of the tax their rates should produce. At the other end of the spectrum, countries like
Nigeria and Oman continue to collect less than 15% of the tax they should. Average tax productivity
has increased slightly (by 0.3%) since the 2018 CRI Index.
Tax impact on the Gini coefficient
Globally, the tax system remains slightly regressive, reflecting the high dependence of many countries
on VAT revenues and their very low collection of progressive taxes. On a more positive note, the tax
system has become slightly less regressive since 2018, with tax systems in 86 countries estimated to
have become more progressive because they are collecting higher shares of their taxes in income
taxes, compared with 68 becoming less so.
The countries with the tax systems most geared towards reducing inequality are Ireland, Tanzania,
South Africa, Argentina and Georgia, according to the latest analyses by the Commitment to Equity
(CEQ) Institute and the OECD. Their progressive tax systems, combined with strong collection of
taxes, mean that they reduce their Gini coefficients 32 by around four points using taxes alone. Those
with the least progressive systems are mostly Eastern European countries like Bulgaria, which have
flat PITs and low corporate tax rates, and are dependent on indirect taxes.
Wealth taxes
The 2020 CRI Index report examines different types of wealth taxes for their potential to mobilize much
more revenue. Because wealth inequality has been rising much faster than income inequality, the
potential for reducing inequality through taxation of wealth is very high. Based on existing country
11experience, the measures most likely to yield more revenue are introducing taxes on stocks of wealth and increasing efforts to collect capital gains taxes. There is smaller but still valuable potential from property and land taxes (especially in lower-income countries), inheritance taxes, financial income taxes and financial transaction taxes. Given the need for additional revenue to combat the COVID-19 crisis and to fund progress on public services under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), taxes on property and wealth could raise trillions of dollars extra. Labour pillar The CRI labour pillar measures respect for trade unions, legal protection for women workers and minimum wages. It measures levels of unemployment, vulnerable and informal employment. Finally, in 2020 we have introduced a new impact indicator that looks at the impact of labour market inequalities. Overall labour pillar results The top 10 countries in the labour pillar are all high-income European countries, which reflects a long history of prioritizing labour rights and women’s rights. Among the highest-scoring low- and lower-middle- income countries is Bolivia, which until 2019 was known for its progressive labour policies and a vibrant workers’ movement, though this represented only salaried workers, about one-third of the working population. At the other end of the scale, eight of the 10 lowest scorers are low- or lower-middle-income countries in Africa, which mostly reflects very low scores on women’s labour rights. India, which has weak labour rights and a high incidence of vulnerable employment, is eighth from the bottom. Labour rights In 2017 (the last year for which labour rights were assessed) there was a slight deterioration in the average respect for labour rights worldwide. Most of the top scorers were OECD countries, led by Finland, but Dominica and Palau also featured, as they respected virtually all International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. Six countries (Belarus, China, Egypt Lao PDR, Uzbekistan and Vietnam) remain at the bottom of the index because they do not allow independent unions. On the other hand, Vietnam’s very low score is mitigated by its recent agreement to ratify the ILO Convention on Freedom of Association by 2023, which would allow independent unions from 2021 as part of the recently negotiated EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement 33. Furthermore, Egypt passed a law in 2017 allowing the establishment of independent trade unions; nevertheless, significant administrative hurdles and restrictions are embedded in the legislation. Bolivia and the Gambia were the countries which most improved respect for labour rights in 2017, together with Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). However, labour rights improvements benefit only salaried workers. On the other hand, Spain, the Maldives and Brazil slipped backwards dramatically, due to their governments’ anti-union attitudes. Women’s rights in the workplace Although the overall CRI score for respect for women’s rights has improved slightly, this masks changes within the specific rights measured. Some countries, including most recently South Sudan, have improved their laws on equal pay and against gender discrimination in the workplace. However, 10 countries still have no legislation on either issue. Nearly half of the countries in the CRI Index do not have adequate rape legislation, and one in five does not have any laws criminalizing sexual harassment. There has been a lot of progress on sexual harassment laws since 2017, with 15 new national laws, but only four improvements on rape laws – and most of the ‘best’ anti-rape laws still require the victim to prove violence rather than defining rape as lack of consent (which the CRI Index will define as the standard in the future). 12
On a brighter note, many countries have improved on parental leave. Countries like South Sudan,
Ethiopia, Zambia, Fiji and Paraguay have all increased maternity leave; Nepal, Ethiopia, Jordan and
Lebanon have increased paternity leave; and New Zealand has added 40 days to parental leave since
2018. Yet disappointingly five countries (Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Tonga and the
United States) continue to deny parents paid leave.
Minimum wage
Most of the best performers on minimum wages are low-income countries, setting more generous
policies on paper. The biggest real increases in 2019 were by the Solomon Islands and Kazakhstan,
while five EU governments also increased real minimum wages, moving towards a target of 60% of
average wages. Overall, 96 countries increased their minimum wage, but many rates did not rise as
fast as GDP, producing a slight overall average fall in scores.
Two modifications to minimum wage calculations have been introduced to the index this year. Some
countries, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Greece, have a lower minimum wage for
young people, so we have penalized them for this by between 2% and 10%, in line with ILO policy. In
addition, we have been tougher on 12 countries which exclude some workers (in certain sectors,
migrants, etc.), giving them all a zero score. Half of these countries are in the Middle East and North
Africa, but since the 2018 CRI Index Djibouti has extended minimum wages to the private sector, and
Egypt, Ethiopia and the Maldives intend to follow suit.
Most minimum wages fall well short of wages that would allow workers to cover essential needs,
known as ‘living wages’. Many initiatives have been launched around the world to bring minimum
wages closer to living wages, but in most countries, progress has been slow: for example, Rwanda’s
minimum wage is only 2% of a living wage and has not been changed since 1974.
Vulnerable employment and unemployment
Many low-income countries perform well on the 2020 CRI Index labour pillar, especially on minimum
wages. But it is vital to remember that the progressive labour policies of countries like Mozambique
and Niger apply to only a small fraction of the population, because 80–95% of the workforce are in
vulnerable employment and do not have these rights. Women, in particular, are far more likely to be in
vulnerable employment. This shows a key need for stronger policies to encourage formal employment,
reduce unemployment and extend some rights to vulnerable employees. In the 2020 CRI Index, we
have also widened the definition of ‘vulnerable’ employees to cover workers who are legally deprived
of rights by the formal dual labour system known as ‘Kafala’ in Bahrain and Oman. As a result, these
countries rank 131st and 138th respectively in the labour pillar. While countries of the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) still adopt the Kafala system, Qatar has introduced a milestone labour reform in
2020 to allow migrant workers to change jobs without the employers’ permission. This unprecedented
move presents an effective end of the Kafala system as long as the law is implemented.34 It is hoped
that other countries in the Middle East and North Africa will make similar progress to effectively abolish
this system of modern-day slavery.
Impact: wage inequality
Labour policies and coverage are not enough to assess countries’ progress when it comes to inequality.
Policies must have an impact on closing the wage gap between rich and poor. In this regard, wage
inequality seems to be lowest in OECD countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway and others that
have a low Gini coefficient for wages, ranging from 0.27 to 0.36. On the other hand, the countries faring
worst are mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, with Niger, Liberia and Uganda exhibiting extreme wage
inequality. This reflects two main factors: the poor enforcement of policies on women’s rights and
minimum wages and the high levels of vulnerable and informal employment in these countries.
13CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The coronavirus crisis has exposed the scale of inequality across the world and is likely to leave most countries even more unequal. The need for all governments to rapidly commit to reducing inequality has never been more urgent. 1. Urgent government action to radically reduce inequality In response to the coronavirus pandemic, governments must dramatically improve their efforts on progressive spending, taxation and workers’ pay and protection as part of National Inequality Reduction Plans under SDG 10. These plans should include increases in taxation of the richest corporations and individuals, and an end to tax dodging and the harmful ‘race to the bottom’ on taxation. Spending on public services and social protection needs to be increased and its impact on coverage and inequality improved. The coronavirus pandemic has shown the particular urgency of reaching the SDG targets for universal healthcare and social protection. There also needs to be systematic tracking of public expenditures, involving citizens in budget oversight. Workers need to receive living wages and have their labour rights better protected. Women and girls especially need their rights to equal pay, non-discrimination, and protection against sexual harassment and rape to be enforced including for vulnerable workers, more generous parental leave, and a massive investment in paid care to reduce the burden of unpaid care on women. 2. Inequality policy impact and analysis Governments, international institutions and other stakeholders should work together to radically and rapidly improve data on inequality and related policies, and to accurately and regularly monitor progress in reducing inequality. Governments and international institutions should then analyse the distributional impact of any proposed policies and base their choice of policy direction on the impact of those policies on reducing inequality. The top priorities emerging from this year’s CRI are to improve the data and analysis on: the impact of spending on education, health and social protection service coverage and on inequality; the prevalence of wealth taxes, amount of taxes that could be collected, the impact of taxes on inequality, and practices which harm tax collection from individuals; and the coverage and enforcement of labour rights, gender equality and minimum wages in all countries. 3. Coming together to fight inequality Governments and international institutions which are serious about the deeply harmful impacts of inequality and the need to rapidly reduce it should come together to make the case for urgent action, especially in light of the dramatic increases in inequality that are likely to occur as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The most urgent policy measures include a global commitment and funding to ensure that COVID-19 vaccines will be free to all countries; and a much more dramatic expansion in social protection to protect workers in lower-income countries. However, for longer term recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, there is a strong possibility that the world will revert to austerity and spending cuts to bring down debt burdens, as it did after the global financial crisis. To prevent this, the international community must enhance its solidarity by approving a large new issue of IMF Special Drawing Rights, extending the current debt standstill through 2022 and providing comprehensive debt cancellation to stop debt service diverting funds from public services; and introducing solidarity taxes on wealth and income from which part of the proceeds go to lower-income countries. 14
1 THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON
COMMITMENT TO FIGHT
INEQUALITY
THE INEQUALITY VIRUS
Coronavirus has swept across a world that was already profoundly unequal. In country after country it
has magnified and worsened these inequalities. While anyone can catch the virus, the equality ends
there. Those living in poverty are least able to isolate, to protect themselves. They are more likely to
have pre-existing poor health, making them more likely to die. Economically, it is ordinary people who
are losing their jobs in their tens of millions, facing huge levels of hunger and hardship. Meanwhile,
those at the top have the savings to protect themselves and are more likely to have secure jobs.
Women, who are more likely to work in the informal sector, and who make up the majority of health
workers, are particularly badly affected. In many countries, Black people and those from ethnic
minorities are far more likely to die from COVID-19 than white people.
Box 1: Race and inequality
The CRI Index primarily measures progress on tackling economic inequality, i.e. the gap between
rich and poor. However, there is a very strong and two-way relationship between economic
inequality and racial inequality.
For example, economic inequality in the United States is rooted in slavery. For 246 years, slave
labour built the foundation of the country’s great wealth. It is estimated that US slave owners
extracted nearly $14 trillion of labour from enslaved persons in today’s dollars.35 For most of the
period since the end of slavery in 1865, ‘Jim Crow’ systems of segregation concentrated black
workers into lower-wage jobs, deprived them of loans and mortgages and provided them with vastly
inferior education and healthcare. The so-called ‘war on drugs’ has fed the private prison industry
with a disproportionate Black population,36 robbing countless men and women of years of income,
voting rights and, on their release, job and housing opportunities. This legacy of systemic racism
and white supremacy persists. In 2015 the median wealth of white households was $139,300
compared with $12,780 for Black households.37
South Africa is one of the most economically unequal countries in the world, and this is closely
linked to racial inequality. Over 25 years after the end of the racist system of apartheid, a Black
person still earns five times less than a white person.38 During colonization, huge tracts of land
were taken by white people from Black people and huge inequality in land ownership persists
today, with the 9% of white citizens owning 72% of the land. 39 In terms of social indicators, before
the coronavirus pandemic, only one in 10 Black households had health insurance compared with
seven in 10 white households, and unemployment was six times higher for Black women than for
white men.
In other countries, indigenous ethnic populations in Australasia and Latin America, and lower-
caste citizens in India, have long suffered from the same types of institutionalized racism, as have
ethnic minorities in almost all wealthy countries.
As a result of these inequalities, COVID-19 has hit those who were already subject to racial
discrimination much harder. In the USA, for example, reflecting their lack of insurance, inability to
work from home, lower incomes and more crowded housing, Black and Latinx people have been
three times as likely to get infected as white people; four times as likely to be hospitalized and
twice as likely to die.40
15Government responses to the coronavirus pandemic Given that the data in the 2020 CRI Index predates the pandemic, in this section we review government policy responses to COVID-19 for their likely impact on inequality, to bring the analysis up to date. Governments have responded to the coronavirus and its impacts in very different ways. Health and social protection Oxfam estimates that at least 160 countries have increased health spending in response to the virus, based on IMF data.41 A significant number of countries are increasing the number of health workers they have, as well as providing them with increased salaries. Some 70% of the world’s health workers are women, on the frontline in tackling the virus. In Lithuania, health worker salaries have been increased by 15%, while Greece has increased its number of intensive care beds by more than 70%, has recruited more than 3,337 health workers and plans to add more.42 Unfortunately, very few countries appear to have taken steps to cut the user fees and out-of-pocket expenses that prevent the poorest people accessing healthcare. Some countries (e.g. Georgia) have removed fees for coronavirus-related expenses, but not for other medical needs. There has also been a significant expansion in social protection globally in response to the crisis. Between 1 February and 15 July 2020, 203 countries and territories announced at least 1,218 social protection measures.43 Many high-income countries with their more comprehensive welfare provision and automatic systems are more able to help anyone who faces destitution. 44 However, some low- and lower-middle-income countries have also seen huge increases in the number of people receiving financial help: for example, Bolivia has scaled up cash transfers by 322% to cover 97% of the population. 45 However, years of reforms supported by the international financial institutions (IFIs) have led many countries to focus on smaller-scale social protection schemes, supposedly designed to target those living in extreme poverty. This left 105 countries with no social protection against unemployment, and only 22% of the global workforce covered.46 Such countries are very poorly equipped to scale up in the face of the crisis. Many countries have made what look like large increases to their social protection schemes, but are starting from a very low base: Nigeria has scaled up cash transfers by 1,054%, but is reaching only 4.8% of its population. 47 Overall, social protection spending continues to be extremely low in the poorest countries – barely reaching $1 per capita. 48 Taxation Most countries have attempted to cut taxes to help relieve the pressure on people and businesses. There have been cuts in value added tax (VAT)49 which, given this is a regressive tax, are a good thing. Many other countries have sought to defer or postpone tax payments for small businesses to help them stay afloat. More positively, a group of high-income countries have made bailouts of corporations conditional on them no longer using tax havens. 50 Very few countries have as yet sought to increase taxes on the richest individuals or on companies profiteering from the crisis to help pay for the recovery, which is disappointing. However, in this respect publics are way ahead of governments, with polling showing large majorities in many countries calling for much greater taxation of the richest in response to the crisis.51 On the other hand, a few countries, notably Kenya and Indonesia, have lowered their corporate income tax (CIT) rates, and Kenya also chose to lower its top rate of personal income tax.52 These measures are likely to exacerbate inequality, both directly and by reducing resources for spending. Labour rights The coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the brutal lack of basic labour rights for the majority of 16
workers, with tens of millions being laid off with no compensation. Women are hit hardest as they are
more likely to work in the informal sector. It seems that high-income countries with existing stronger
labour protection have generally been able to weather the storm better: so far they have proven much
better able to protect workers and to transition them back from zero or lower hours to full-time where
they already had short-time working arrangements in place; and New Zealand has provided $5.1bn in
wage subsidies to all workers. 53 But some low- and upper-middle-income countries have also taken
major steps: countries like Togo54 and Namibia 55 have introduced payments to support workers in the
informal sector who have lost their jobs. Botswana has implemented a wage subsidy amounting to
50% of salaries of affected businesses ($86–$216 per month for a period of three months).
On the other hand, the ILO has underlined the massive loss of income for formal sector workers from a
reduction in working hours equivalent to 555 million jobs during the first half of 2020; as well as the
sharp rise in formal unemployment in many countries. 56 The International Trade Union Confederation
(ITUC) has also noted that unions are reporting an increase in the suppression of workers’ and human
rights by more than half of the governments in the countries they have surveyed, using the coronavirus
pandemic as an excuse.57
Overall assessment
Because the pandemic is still peaking in many countries, it is too early to draw firm conclusions on the
relationship between country responses and their performance in the CRI Index. However, it is clear
that most of the OECD countries at the top of the index have responded more comprehensively to the
pandemic, with larger increases in health and social protection spending, and greater protection for
workers and jobs than low-income countries. Within this group, some governments which have been
rising up the CRI Index in recent years stand out. South Korea has instituted universal emergency
relief payments to 22 million households, 58 and Spain has introduced a permanent basic income for
2.3 million people. 59 Many countries have shown that their short-time working support systems have
been much better able to protect workers and reduce layoffs.
Some low- and lower-middle-income countries have also continued to reinforce anti-inequality policies,
improving already strong CRI Index performances. Lawmakers in Ecuador had proposed increased
taxes on the richest corporations and individuals to pay for the crisis, although the bill was defeated in
parliament; other countries have dramatically enhanced anti-inequality policies even though their prior
record in the CRI Index was poor. Countries, such as Myanmar, which had a low ranking in the 2018
CRI Index, have found new impetus in response to the crisis, in this case increasing the population
covered by social protection by 21 million people, an increase of 8,684%.60
However, some governments have taken measures which will worsen inequality: notably Kenya and
Indonesia, through their reductions in tax on the wealthy. 61 And far more of the world’s lower-income
countries have been unable to take significant measures (beyond immediate health spending and cash
transfers) due to shortage of budget funds, which means that they are doing nothing to counteract the
inequality-increasing impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
17Figure 2: Comparing coronavirus responses with countries’ CRI performances62
Good CRI performance, good coronavirus Good CRI performance, poor coronavirus
response response
South Korea: Built on progressive policies in Kenya: Good tax score on the CRI Index; responded
recent years by introducing universal benefits, to the pandemic with tax cuts for rich individuals and
bailouts, conditional bailouts, etc. corporates and minimal social protection and health
measures.
Togo: Provided monthly benefits for all informal
workers made unemployed by the pandemic and Indonesia: good tax score in the CRI Index 2018;
is increasing health spending to cover 3% of despite the crisis, it introduced a permanent cut in
GDP. CIT to 22% from 25% in 2020–21, and to 20%
beginning in 2022.
Bad CRI performance, good coronavirus Bad CRI performance, poor coronavirus
response response
Spain: Relatively poor policies in recent years to Nigeria: Big percentage increase in social protection,
fight inequality, but at end of May 2020 it but still covers only 10 million people when 90 million
introduced a new permanent basic income for 2.3 live on less than $2 a day.
million people.
Bangladesh: Spending $11m on bonus payments
to health workers and adding 24 million people to
its social protection schemes.
There is no doubt that the virus has shown publics around the world that their governments need to do
– and in some cases have the will to do – far more to protect them. Many of these responses are
temporary, but they give an indication of what is possible. History shows that many reforms, including
the first ever income tax, which was created in the UK as a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic
wars, become permanent.63
The role of the IMF and the World Bank in the coronavirus response
In response to the economic impact of coronavirus, the IMF has made available US$1 trillion in
emergency funding and has cancelled some payments on debt service owed to it; so far it has
disbursed US$88bn to 80 countries and has saved 28 countries $251m in debt service.
The IMF has also been at the forefront of speeches and analysis emphasizing how the pandemic is
worsening inequality, especially for vulnerable workers and women, and suggesting policy responses
such as expanded unemployment and health benefits, sick leave, cash transfers and public works
programmes; potentially funded by increasing income and wealth taxes.64
However, its emergency programmes have focused on closing the huge budget and balance of
payments financing gaps produced by coronavirus-related revenue collapses, and on allowing more
space for health and limited social protection spending to confront the crisis. There has been virtually
no mention in national programmes of the impact of emergency policy measures on inequality. 65
In addition, the IMF’s global, regional and national reports are already warning of the need for ‘fiscal
consolidation’ i.e. austerity, to reduce debt burdens once the pandemic has been contained. Virtually
all of the national emergency loan documents emphasize the need for governments to make anti-
coronavirus spending temporary and to take fiscal adjustment measures to reduce deficits after the
pandemic. For example, in June 2020, the IMF agreed a 12-month, $5.2bn loan programme with
18Egypt, which detailed a FY2020/21 primary budget surplus target of 0.5% to allow for spending related
to the coronavirus pandemic, but demanded that it be restored to the pre-crisis primary surplus of 2%
in FY 2021/22.66 The IMF has also been linked to large cuts in health spending, which have left
countries ill-prepared for the crisis.67
It will be essential that IMF advice on recovery programmes makes fighting inequality central, through
progressive taxation, social spending and enhanced labour rights; and that the institution adopts
clearer policies supporting universal healthcare and social protection to accelerate progress on the
SDGs and prevent future pandemics from exacerbating inequality once again.
The World Bank has pledged $160bn in emergency funding over the next 15 months, and has
advocated debt relief by other creditors, but has so far refused to cancel any debt owed to it, despite
low-income countries repaying $3.5bn to the World Bank in 2020. 68 Its emergency funding has centred
on health and social protection. The speed and scale of the World Bank’s COVID-19 health support to-
date has been important for countries in their initial emergency response to this crisis. However,
Oxfam's analysis shows that only 8 of 72 World Bank COVID-19 health projects69 included any
measures to reduce financial barriers to accessing health services, even though a number of these
projects acknowledge high out-of-pocket health expenditure as a major issue. Such expenditures
bankrupt millions of people each year and exclude them from treatment. It is these kinds of gaps in
project design that can seriously limit the World Bank's potential impact on inequality. In terms of social
protection, the Bank continues to encourage narrowly targeted rather than universal social protection
programmes.
To make its response to the pandemic consistent with its poverty reduction and ‘shared prosperity’
goals, the Bank’s support needs to focus on ensuring free, universal healthcare and social protection,
and to provide debt relief to countries to support this extra spending., The Bank also needs to ensure
its programming to support domestic resource mobilization is supporting tax progressivity, and it
should also eliminate its ‘Doing Business’ tax criterion which encourages cuts in corporate tax rates.
The way forward
It is currently unclear how the ultimate response to the coronavirus pandemic will unfold. On the
positive side, the leaders of almost all the major global organizations (ILO, IMF, ITUC, OECD, United
Nations, WHO) are suggesting that the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on the poor shows the
need to accelerate measures to fight inequality, both globally and nationally. They have been making
global proposals which include free access for all to COVID-19 vaccines, and a Global Social
Protection fund to provide a permanent social protection floor in all countries, both of which are sorely
needed. The UN and WHO have particularly emphasized the need to accelerate progress on the
health and social protection Sustainable Development Goals, partly in order to offset the increases in
inequality and poverty due to the pandemic, but also to ensure that there is greater social ‘resilience’ in
countries for any future similar events.
However, all of these institutions have also emphasized that funding sources for any permanent
reinforcement of anti-inequality policies are falling woefully short. This is particularly true for most low-
and lower-middle-income countries, which have not been able to borrow more money at a reasonable
cost on international financial markets, especially given that their debt burdens have increased
dramatically as a result of falls in budget revenue and GDP from the pandemic. In addition, there is so
far no major overall increase in the flow of OECD government aid funds to lower-income countries:
some countries are announcing increases, some stabilizing and some cutting in line with their falls in
GDP due to the pandemic.70 These factors explain why, even with the extra support provided by the
IFIs, the scale of average packages to fight COVID-19 in lower-income countries is low (1.4%)
compared with emerging economies (3.4%) and high-income economies (7.9%).71 There is a major
risk that once the pandemic subsides, if extra financing is not available, the emphasis will be on fiscal
19You can also read
